Running a car on water via electrolysis

>> Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
>> Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
>> plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
>> to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.
>
> No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser. That doesn't
> mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable
> energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more
> efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
> amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.

I have thought about but never researched this cycle.

You raise corn, from that corn you get corn oil, which can be made into
fuel. Take the waste from the corn oil and ferment it to get alcohol, which
can be used as fuel. Take the waste from the fermenting and feed it to cows
or pigs. Take the waste from the animals and use it to make methane, again
a fuel. The waste from making methane can be used to fertilize corn. I
know that there are going to be some loses but I wonder how much.

By adding other energy into the equation such as using solar thermal in the
distillation of the alcohol and the production of methane I would think that
would boost efficacy w/o any added 'fuel' use.

Anyone got some ideas on problems with this?

wrote:

> It would be far more
> efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
> amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.

I wouldn't even call it 'massive'. The whole world may produce, net,
around a quarter of a quad/year of crop fuel ethanol. The world demands
175 quads/year just in liquid fuels.

On Feb 13, 2:36 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article .com>, wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 8:22 pm, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
>
> >> Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
> >> Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
> >> plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
> >> to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.
> > No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser.
>
> Wrong. It's only a loser if done with poor feed stock and inefficently,
> same as everything else. You could make gasoline in some half-assed way
> and have it be a net loser.
>
> > That doesn't
> > mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable
> > energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more
> > efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
> > amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.
>
> I take it you haven't been paying attention to natural gas prices the
> last few years. Might as well keep using gasoline.
>
> In reality though, we aren't running out of oil, the reason to do this is
> to restore free market choice. There is no need to replace gasoline 100%
> with any one thing or any multiple things. The need is to cut into the
> market significantly. Of course the problem is, the taps could be turned
> on and drive the price of gasoline way down should alternatives get a
> foot hold to knock them off.

But, neither of those will ever happen,
since the only interest Exxon or Shell
have in the whole matter is keeping
the gate receipts at Disneyworld
high enough that only people
who complain is Cuba.

Brent P wrote:

> In reality though, we aren't running out of oil...

Why say this? It is meaningless. It is not what peak oil is about.

Rarpy wrote:

> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.


Electrolysis is a favored method for hair removal.

no spam wrote:
>>> Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2)
>>> Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the
>>> plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier
>>> to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.
>> No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser. That doesn't
>> mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable
>> energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more
>> efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive
>> amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.
>
> I have thought about but never researched this cycle.
>
> You raise corn, from that corn you get corn oil, which can be made into
> fuel. Take the waste from the corn oil and ferment it to get alcohol, which
> can be used as fuel. Take the waste from the fermenting and feed it to cows
> or pigs. Take the waste from the animals and use it to make methane, again
> a fuel. The waste from making methane can be used to fertilize corn. I
> know that there are going to be some loses but I wonder how much.
>
> By adding other energy into the equation such as using solar thermal in the
> distillation of the alcohol and the production of methane I would think that
> would boost efficacy w/o any added 'fuel' use.
>
> Anyone got some ideas on problems with this?
>
>

Much simpler solution.

Raise corn. Ferment corn into alcohol. Drink alcohol and say to hell
with the rest......


--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Rarpy > wrote in article
.com>...
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.
>
>

Interestingly, the companies that are having the worst problems are those
that have forsaken the SUV and pickup truck market for fuel-efficient, POS,
econo-boxes.

The best-selling vehicle in the USA is the full-size, Ford F-150 pickup
truck.

In article >, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In reality though, we aren't running out of oil...
>
> Why say this? It is meaningless. It is not what peak oil is about.

There are vast untapped sources of oil that is more costly to extract.
Building bandwidth is just that, building bandwidth. And these sources
are far from energy negative.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota > wrote in article
.com>...
> On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
> > Rarpy wrote:
> > > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> > > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> > > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> > > engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> > > produced the technology to make it happen:
> >
> > >http://hytechapps.com/company/press
> >
> > Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of
gases. It's
> > simply very expensive and inefficient.
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> No, it isn't that hard nor expensive.

Tell that to Billings Research in Provo, Utah.

They've been trying for 30 years to make hydrogen work like propane.


> The same technology that
> converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some
> adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane,
> so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one
> solution.
>

.....which will only exacerbate hydrogen's tendencies to backfire.

On Feb 12, 9:54 pm, "Rarpy" > wrote:
> Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems
> people just want to debunk the idea of combusting
> hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion
> engine, but yet again it seems a company has
> produced the technology to make it happen:
>
> http://hytechapps.com/company/press
>
> Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry
> are making tens of billions more dollars every year
> and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now
> can't comprehend that consumers don't want
> gasoline-guzzlers.

It would be fantastic if we could make electrolysis of water efficient
enough to run an internal combustion engine. And have that engine
produce the electricity required to keep the electrolysis going until
it ran out of water. Unfortunately our current internal combustion
engines aren't capable of running on the small amount of hydrogen
produced using a reasonable amount of voltage. I experimented with 24
volts dc (2 motorcycle batteries wired in series) and some sea water
(the salt makes electrolysis more efficient). A small amount of
hydrogen gas was produced and it did burn. But you would need a very
efficient means of producing electricity from this small amount of
hydrogen.